You can't trust that tyrant Terwilliger. He's an awful, awful man, and once he made school principal, he used his vast autocratic powers to make every Christian suffer. He threw them to the lions. He crucified them upside down. He beheaded them and shot them with arrows. He tied them to stakes and set them afire. He lashed them and flayed them. He burned their bibles and slapped them when they dared to pray in the lunchroom. He made them stop wearing offensive t-shirts that said other members of the student body were going to hell.
Oh, wait. He didn't do any of those things, except the last one. What kind of pathetic despot is he if he doesn't even try to oppress people? And what kind of crybaby Christians are these picketers? Their only hardship is that they aren't allowed to pretend to be the Reverend Phelps in the school.
Trent Allen, a spokesman for the San Juan Unified School District, said the problem with the shirts worn by San Juan students isn't that they espouse religious beliefs, it's that they target a particular group or refer to a sexual act. The shirts for which students were suspended on Monday quoted Bible verses implying homosexuals would go to hell.
This sounds awfully familiar. Why, my own wee little daughter stirred up outrage at her school last year by wearing a "Gay? Fine by me" t-shirt, which led to a group of homophobic and overtly Christian students to ostracize anyone who shared that sentiment and start wearing their own hate-mongering t-shirts. At least they didn't go as far as these wackos in San Juan, who started up a company called "NO GAY GEAR" to produce slick, professional signs, bumper-stickers, and t-shirts damning queers to hell.
The organizers of these protests are, of course, fervent Christians, following in Jesus' footsteps, which is very difficult since, as we all know, Jesus was an acrobatic kick-boxer who strove to annihilate the poor, the weak, and the oppressed, pausing only long enough to do an occasional media interview.
Dick Otterstad and son Luke, leaders of the 20-member El Dorado County congregation, have staged dozens of demonstrations in recent years to expose what they view as Christian persecution.
They've taken to Wal-Mart parking lots dressed up as Santa Claus to warn shoppers about the company's use of "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." They've donned red devil suits and picketed the "imposition" of gay tolerance at school workshops. And they've attracted media attention -- from outlets as big as CNN and USA Today -- at almost every turn.
The Otterstads and their church brought those tactics to Sacramento over the weekend, orchestrating rallies against Dave Terwilliger, the San Juan High School principal who has drawn the ire of religious conservatives for suspending 35 students for wearing anti-gay T-shirts.
Terwilliger suspended the first round of students nearly three weeks ago, saying the shirts disrupted the learning environment. Students said the shirts were an expression of their religious views and intended as a counterpoint to the April 18 Day of Silence, an annual student protest in support of gay rights.
Since good Christians always respond to pleas for tolerance and civil rights for all with a counterpoint, I guess. Somebody has to speak out for the continued domination of the majority at the expense of those less well represented, and no uppity minorities are going to crawl out from under their bootheel. Otterstad's heroes understood that.
"We're taking biblical issues and bringing them to bear in the culture," said Otterstad, 60. "Jesus did that, the Apostles did that, Martin Luther King did that."
Yeah, he's just like Martin Luther King.
There was also a throw-away paragraph in the article that just cried out to me for more attention. Read this, and think about what it says about our country.
Otterstad ran for a seat on the the Black Oak Mine Unified School Board in El Dorado County in 2004. He said he thinks the public school system should be abolished. He said sodomy laws should be reinstated. He got 38.8 percent of the vote in that election.
He ran for the school board on a platform of abolishing public education. I wish I could say that was unusual, but it's a painfully common occurrence.
He ran for the school board and one of his issues was reinstating sodomy laws. What? Watch out for nosy school board members lurking in the bushes outside your bedroom window now. This may be a crazy country, but I assure you, school boards do not have jurisdiction. I don't think between-classes buggery in the hallway is a problem in most schools, either … but then again, with Otterstad's Kook Church in the community, who knows what lunacy is going on?
He ran on a platform of batshit insanity, and he got over a third of the vote.
That scares me.
Obviously, though, the answer is to play nice with those voters, encourage their quaint folkways, and find some common ground that will convince them to moderate their beliefs and work together in a spirit of cooperation and tolerance with other members of the community. Hmmm, maybe they like science and can join hands with us in improving biology education?
Or just maybe the answer doesn't involve giving religious nutjobs an inch … nah. That wouldn't be sufficiently reverent.
- Log in to post comments
Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a smoot.
I wonder how many of the 38% were learned these attitudes from their parents, as opposed to those who being persuaded by logical (or even illogical) arguments. I agree with earlier comments that genetic changes in human intelligence are not a pressing concern, but what about cultural evolution? My impression is that groups that think women should stay home and have kids seem to have more kids. Could the next few national elections be determined more by demographics than debate?
Ottersad is a certified creep. But (I hate to admit it), he might be right about the t-shirt issue.
Terwilliger had the opportunity to make this controversy into a 1st amendment teach-in. He could have explained why free speech is a core value for Americans, and how he would not discipline students even if their t-shirts were bigoted. Instead, he replied with a heavy hand.
So, you aren't going to join with the "Friendly Atheists" and try to open a dialogue with these guys?
Where's your commitment to Positive Atheism? Remember that Christians want to be persecuted. It fulfills the prophecies!
I don't think between-classes buggery in the hallway is a problem in most schools, either ...
It would have made high school more fun, though.
I just had an insane vision dance into my head of me running down the corridor in high school and passing a couple of gay students having sex openly in the corridor, and me saying, "Don't mind me, I'm just on the way to the library..."
This sort of reminds of situations where people claim "anti-white racism" in situations where they get called out for racist comments. Dominant groups throughout history have always had a peculiar narcissism about losing their societal hegemony.
This is the sort of story that makes me think that one day we may have to give the fundamentalists their own state or swath of the country. You know, a nice place where they can ban science, stone to death anyone who engages in non-vaginal sex, and picnic alongside the runway to wait for Jesus to fly in on his spaceship. Might as well start with Utah, where Republican party chairs are literally bursting into tears these days because Satan is using illegal immigrants to destroy America. We could even let the Fundies call their reservation "America," and the rest of us could keep "United States." That'd be fair, right? But perhaps they'd prefer "Jesus Land."
I would love to see the look on their faces if someone were to walk up to them in order to a) ask them how saying that homosexuals were going to hell squares with the idea of a "loving God," and b) mention to them about how the Bible says "he who claims to know the light but hates his brother is a liar."
Jeffrey, the First Amendment doesn't apply to school. For example, would anyone argue that the school should allow t-shirts saying "Niggers are going to hell"? Terwilliger is right to keep hateful conduct out.
I can see the first amendment issues, but couldn't this also fall under sexual harrasment? If its illegal to have a hostile workplace, how can it be legal to have a hostile schoolplace? The problem isn't the religious component to the t-shirt, its the fact that it is targeting a specific set of people and virtually threatening them.
I mean, the kids couldn't wear a shirt that says "women should stay in the kitchen" but that is at least as bibically supported as condemning gays.
Of course at the same time our right to say stupid and hateful things is protected by the first amendment, and keeping kids from wearing the shirts doesn't stop them from thinking the thought.
Perhaps the school could have just issued a statement of solidarity to homosexuals along the lines of "people can say what they want, but we will not discrimate on the basis of sexual orientation, and consider the statements of those who do as contrary to our intended education mission" or something.
And he would also need to add on that with a right comes a responsibility. Free speech is not absolute, and schools do have legal authority to restrict forms of speech which are offensive and disruptive; extended from their authority to have dress codes.
Ford wrote, "I wonder how many of the 38% were learned these attitudes from their parents, as opposed to those who being persuaded by logical (or even illogical) arguments."
Far more likely was that the majority of those 38% didn't have any idea who they were voting for, or what his platform was.
I've known plenty of people who just pick a random couple of names for local elections, or choose by party preferance, without knowing anything about the candidates viewpoints or platform.
We shouldn't assume intolerant bigotry to what is adequately explained by ignorance. (Of course, bigotry is a subset of ignorance. But not all ignorance is due to bigotry.)
Keep in mind that El Dorado county is very small (pop 156,299 as of 2000 census), and very rural. This population is spread across a lot of mountain towns, and the main attraction, Lake Tahoe, is visited by hordes of folks from the San Francisco Bay area, which we all know is a cesspool of gay liberals.
Sacramento in general leans heavily conservative (it's a massive sea of suburbia built upon 100 year floodplains), so hearing this crap coming from there is not surprising.
It sucks to be a liberal atheist around here... even if I wanted to get into politics, there would be no chance of getting more than about 5 - 8% of the vote. My own mother in law has said that she votes for people because they are Christians first, and then later considers their politics...
I forgot to add, that El Dorado county is also 97% white. They don't take too kindly to diversity around there.
Perhaps the principal should have taken note of the materials the t-shirts were made of, as well as the students other clothing. He could then have quoted the biblical proscription about wearing two different textiles. Abomination is abomination, doncha know.
Curt Cameron writes, in complete error:
The first amendment most certainly does apply in the public schools. There is a long line of court cases about how it applies. I suspect the school will lose this case, for the same reason it would lose if it banned t-shirts that read, "gay? fine by me."
While I abhor the Christian bigots as much as anyone here, they have as much right to express their bigotry as Skatje does to express her tolerance.
"He ran on a platform of batshit insanity, and he got over a third of the vote."
He would probably won here. Hell, Bush/Cheney got 82% of the vote in this county - in 2004!
The old quotation from the asst attorney general in the Nixon era (Michael Ullmann), known as "Ullmann's Razor", comes to mind regarding the motivation behind the antics of these religous bigots: "When stupidity is a sufficient explanation, there is no need to have recourse to any other".
Don't a lot of schools (successfully) enforce bans on "gang colors?"
These shirts, it seems to me, serve a similar (primary) role: allowing people of a common political and social clique to enjoy a public display of solidarity and gain the ability to intimidate by making others conscious of the large population of said clique.
By making their gang colors out of text on a t-shirt, this group thinks they've found a loop-hole that will protect their right to wear gang colors under the umbrella of free-speech.
I think an argument could be made that since the primary role of these shirts is not to communicate (ie. excercise free speech) but to intimidate, they are not protected speech.
I'm with Russell -- I don't think that principals should be involved in regulating student expression, when it's at the level of words on a shirt (or a book bag). Certainly, this is in party because I suspect there are more principals who would have banned Skatje's shirt than the "hell" ones that are the subject of PZ's post.
Students are in school to learn a great many things, and among them is how to deal with others who aggressively disagree with one's own heartfelt ideals and values. I say let the shirts be worn -- and leave it to the students (aka "the next generation of adults") to figure out what it all means. Mediating their intellectual discourse for them isn't a great way to train their minds for the future.
Goes without saying but will say anyway that I think the protesters and the students they're backing are hateful idiots.
Not that it will ever happen here but what about school uniforms. I had 12 years wearing them and actually think they are pretty good idea. No need to think about what to wear to school, it evens everyone out and depending on the school they could be modified enough for a bit of difference.
Moot point I know but could save some of this bullshit.
Creepy by a factor of 10.
When I first saw the poster I thought it was a Side Show Bob protest.
Curt,
1st amendment does apply at public schools (private schools are exempt completely), but there is an exception for speech that is considered disruptive to the learning process. I personally think "hate speech" falls squarely in that category. Being a gay teen in this country must be hard enough without being harassed at school.
He forced 500 children to play the biggest piano in the world. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045464/
--Sorry I couldn't help it.
A message of tolerance vs. a message targeting a group for intolerance? Sorry, the school did the right thing and removed the shirts that were condoning violence and hatred and left the shirts alone that just asked for acceptance. I don't think there are many prosecutors that will even take the case on.
A message of tolerance vs. a message targeting a group for intolerance? Sorry, the school did the right thing and removed the shirts that were condoning violence and hatred and left the shirts alone that just asked for acceptance. I don't think there are many prosecutors that will even take the case on.
As far as the 38% of the vote goes, you have to remember that this area of California votes overwhelmingly Republican, to a fault.
John Doolittle does not represent this area, but the voters there vote in ways similar to those in Doolittle's district.
Great article on Doolittle here:
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=318713
I really think the 35 students who drew suspensions had it coming. I would absolutely expect to be suspended for wearing a shirt that says, "Jesus sucks, and he likes it." No doubt about it.
Maybe we need to bring about more biblically-inspired punishments. Kids who don't honor their mother and father need to be stoned to death. That sounds like a good idea, and the Bible supports it.
It's time to put down myths and fairytales and superstitions and grow up. Toss out the Bible and move on.
Evangelize for Rational Thought.
What a pity these students were shut up! Someone could have made up alternative T-shirts with other quotes from the Bible, like St. Paul's injunction against women teaching, or his urging slaves to obey their masters.
I can just hear the whining: "They're making our holy book look bad... by quoting from it... just like we're doing... only when they do it, it's bad!"
If we silence the bigots, we also silence the anti-bigots.
Actually no one is being silenced.
T-shirts are being restricted. There's a difference.
Crosius writes:
The issue with such analogies is whether the specifics hold from case to case. I am not a first amendment lawyer, but I suspect one of the specifics that matters is that the gangs that are targeted are organizations that in fact have planned and committed violent felonies. Now yeah, you can point to Christians who have committed hate crimes. But I doubt you can point to the specific church or group involved having done so. These kind of specific differences matter. A public school cannot ban speech merely because it considers such speech hateful.
BTW, it won't be a prosecutor taking the case. It will be one of the students whose t-shirt was banned who will sue, aided by a legal rights organization. I hope it is the ACLU, but in this case, it is more likely to be one of the right-wing groups formed so that right-wing Christians can get this kind of legal protection without going to an organization that they usually love to bad mouth.
Errr... maybe he meant Martin Luther?
Re: gang colors
I agree; such an argument could be made.
But my Death Cab for Cutie and Azumanga Daioh tee-shirts are safe, right? Whew! :-)
I wonder if these people with their imagined "War on Christmas" and their persecution complexes will ever realize how silly they look to people from ethnic or racial groups that have experienced REAL persecution in the recent past. I realize that's not a very, um, scientific statement, but this stuff just gets on my nerves. Grow up, people!
I think anyone who believes in the First Amendment has to come down against content-based restrictions on teeshirts. On the other hand, a teeshirt that says 'Fundamentalist Christians are drooling, mouth-breathing morons' should be equally protected.
Tiskel said:
I agree and disagree with this. You need to get yourself south of the American River, like I did. The closer you get to Placerville and Roseville, the more correct your statement is.
I'm proud to say that I live in the culturally diverse, and "leans Democrat", Pocket. It's not the same as Carmichael...
I very seriously doubt people like Doolittle and Lungren would win in Matsui's district.
it most certainly does!
read tinker v. des moines (1969). this ruling, btw, specifically applies to articles of clothing. the only stipulations that differ from normal 1st amendment rights is that the students' rights to speech must be balanced with the legitimate state interest of educating the students -- ie: if the speech is disruptive to class, it's out. in tinker, the supreme court ruled that passive speech (such as armbands and t-shirts) was clearly non-disruptive, and thus constitutionally protected. legally, if these nutjobs wanted to sue, the school would not have a legal leg to stand on.
unfortunately, in this country, we have to take the bad speech with the good speech. the quote the ruling of cohen v. california (a t-shirt case, btw), "one man's vulgarity is another man's lyric."
as a side note, i am forced to wonder if that "third of the population" has any correlation with the people that still support our president, and the third of the population that believes they've been abducted by space aliens.
Heh. My loving family gave me the DVDs of The West Wing Season 2 recently for my birthday, and just last night I watched this scene, in which Bartlet takes down a "Dr. Laura" clone on the subject of biblical punishments and other literalism insanity:
Gotta love Aaron Sorkin for giving "Dr." Ignorant Tight-Ass a name that sounds very much like it belongs to a porn star, eh? ;^)
Heh. My loving family gave me the DVDs of The West Wing Season 2 recently for my birthday, and just last night I watched this scene, in which Bartlet takes down a "Dr. Laura" clone on the subject of biblical punishments and other literalism insanity:
Gotta love Aaron Sorkin for giving "Dr." Ignorant Tight-Ass a name that sounds very much like it belongs to a porn star, eh? ;^)
OK, this is getting weird: This time, I know I only hit "Post" once, and the message still showed up twice. Grrrr....
They should be allowed to wear t-shirts displaying the words Jesus said about homosexuals.
reinstating sodomy laws?
Does that mean that sodomy is like...mandatory?
It would be more appropriate to compare them with people who were persecuted, arrested, exiled, tortured or killed because of ideology.
#37
Yes! I wear some everyday! My favorite quote from jesus about gays is " ".
Re post #30:
Azumanga Daioh...rock on! :)
Being neither an American nor a lawyer I really can't comment on the Constitutional legalities, but it seems to me that whether this can be considered hate speech turns on the exactly what is said on the T-shirt. If they quote verses about putting homosexuals to death, then that's an implicit threat of violence. But if it just says they're going to Hell, then where's the threat? Might as well wear a T-shirt saying that if you step on a sidewalk crack, your mother will be rendered a paraplegic.
The quote about freedom of speech not applying to schools is, in fact, wrong. This is, I think, very much about freedom of speech, but the school is on the RIGHT side of this one. Imagine walking up to a black student in the hallway and saying, to his face, "You're all worthless niggers, and you're all going to hell." Freedom of speech would have nothing to do with it. You'd be targeting individuals for harassment, and that's not only against school rules, where I come from it can be a crime. I can't see how it's any different to wear t-shirts saying gays are going to hell. They're aimed at specific people, who know who they are. Wearing a shirt saying "Gay? Fine by me!" is a qualitatively different sentiment, that isn't targeting anybody for abuse or harassment.
I don't think between-classes buggery in the hallway is a problem in most schools,
...unless they are run by priests. (And even then, I don't think it's actually in the hallways.)
Eamon Knighr:
I'm not a lawyer, but I am an American, and as far as I can tell, "hate speech" simply doesn't have any legal meaning in this nation. American hate laws have nothing to do with speech, but address the motive of an act that would be criminal in any case. Thus, if one commits an act of vandalism, that is a crime. If the act of vandalism is motivated from animosity toward certain protected groups, then in some states, that makes it a higher category of crime, bringing stiffer punishment. That hate itself is perfectly legal. As is speech expressing that hate. Both are protected by our first amendment.
Yes, a speech act can constitute an assault, if it really is a threat of violence or reasonable interpreted so. It can constitute incitement to riot if it is likely to have that effect. Brandenburg v. Ohio expressed the standard "where such advocacy is directed to producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." But merely expressing hatred against people because of their race, religion, height, appearance, choice in t-shirts, or any other basis is your right. Or at least, it is your right in the US.
Azumanga Daioh...bleck. Can't you otaku obsess over something that's less uselessly banal, like Ghost in the Shell or Evangelion. Granted, these are pretty crappy in their own right, but at least they have robots.
Apparently, Christianity has been dumbed down to an entitlement to be an asshole. If you don't let them abuse the people around them, you're "persecuting" them. But hey, at least they're admitting that their religion is sociopathic.
I'm going to start a religion that entitles me to other people's teenage daughters. If you won't give them to me, you must hate me. I demand my civil rights as a member of the persecuted sect of the Church of θυσίακοριτσιών.
.
Re stogoe & #46:
Considering that alot of popular anime (in America) has tons of robots, magical girls, aliens, monsters with tentacles, uber ninjas, and heroes with great powers, a comedy about a slightly surreal high school life with a plot of nothing except, again, high school life is quite non-banal in it's apparent banality.
Huh? ;)
Yeah, and there's the additional dimension presented by the fact that school attendance is mandatory. People in the "real world" have the ability to deal with harrassing, potentially threatening speech by walking away; because they're required to be in attendance and even somewhat restricted in their movements by the structure of the school day, students are effectively compelled to remain in the presence of their harrassers.
Freedom of speech is never absolute; it must not trample other protected rights. The question here is not whether freedom of speech applies in schools, but whether this particular speech crosses the line into violating other, equally strongly protected rights. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the compulsory nature of school attendance has a part to play in where you strike that balance.
I'm late to the party here, but... Stanton, have you ever met a fundie?
(a) God doesn't want to send them to hell; he sent ten hojillion fundies to help them; it's their own fault.
(b) They don't hate gay people; they're doing this out of love. And if you believe it makes the difference between an eternal chaste orgasm and eternal torture, pretty much anything's justified out of love.
They may be bigots, but they're pretty internally consistent bigots.
Well if a kid can get kicked out of school for wearing a pirate costume as a follower of the FSM. Then they sure as there is no hell better ban that crap in schools.
So they are being persecuted because someone called them out for persecuting others? Wow, Jesus would flip in his grave if he did not rise from the dead.
I also do not see how 80% of a society can ever be persecuted. I have never heard of a persecuted Majority.
Sadly, until the same Christians rise up and reclaim their faith from the retards that have taken it over, I am lumping you all in the same boat, a boat of idiots.
Christianity, when taken seriously, is pretty much tailor-made for trolling, isn't it? Not only does it command adherents to hassle people, it actually teaches them to look forward to the mockery and derision sane people will give them, and juices them up with deliciously-addictive self-righteousness.
Ed says the shirt is A-OK, and that's good enough for me.
Reinstated? Hell, the government hasn't quit doing it. Everytime I read about another assanine thing the government is funding (Faith Based Initiatives, for instance), and look at the FICA column on my paycheck, I feel more than a little used.
Also, considering how truly stupid, and in some cases ugly, those who are against homosexuality are, you'd think they'd want more people to be gay. If they force every man to be hetero, they'll have way more competition.
-Berlzebub
PS. Yes, I know I'm rambling, but my mind isn't with it today.
I'll send a T-Shirt to Ed. "Jesus was gay."
See, you'd think that, because you're making sense. But fundies think that gay people are interested in only two things: little boys and straight, uptight fundies. If it's a choice between men coming after them and their kids or men coming after their women, well, it's an easy choice to make.
(Yes, I notice that I used the possessive. From the fundie viewpoint, somebody owns the women folk, whether they're married off or not.)
Public schools have (or at least should have) the right to ban anything demonstrably disruptive to the learning environment. People generally send their children to school to learn, not to, y'know, be watching the kid with the t-shirt that projects a laser light show on the ceiling, or the kid with a sound chip in his or her pants that makes various car honking noises.
Yes, that's a bit of an exaggeration. But there's a difference between shirts that protest or convey a message, and shirts intentionally designed to cause disruption through offensiveness and mean-spiritedness. The difference between "I'm not a fan of homosexuality" and "All queers go to hell" is kind of like the difference between "I don't support this war" and "Your soldier brother can go to hell". The former states your personal position while the latter is aggressive against others and encourages conflict and possibly some kind of violence.
Of course, the best approach to all of this would be for a group of students to wear shirts that say "All Dogs Go to Heaven", and rabidly, pseudo-seriously argue against the homophobic students to this effect. "All queers go to hell!" "No! You're wrong! All Dogs Go to Heaven!" I'm a strong believer in the power of absurdity. Why have their argument when you can twist it into your own and make the whole thing entirely devoid of meaning?
When I got to work this morning, I had two Watchtower magazines laid on my desk. One was wide open with a article about "what happens when you die?" (or something like that)
Now, I REALLY don't know who did it, since I don't go around spouting about my disbeliefs, but I definitely haven't gone around laying printouts of Dawkins' or Dennet's most memorable quotes.
Maybe I should.
Yup. It's time to get a Darwin poster... or something.
Ed says the shirt is A-OK, and that's good enough for me.
Do you have a link to where Ed has commented on this particular case? I've looked on Dispatches and can't find anything, and I'm interested in what he has to say.
Otaku? Moi? Actually, the local otaku is my brother, who just turned sixteen. He's still in high school (I am not) and he sometimes wears tees that relate to anime and manga (I never do) and I just thought I'd throw Daioh it out there and see who noticed. :-)
It's a cute manga, but I find it vaguely disturbing that it's classified as Seinen manga, as opposed to Shōnen or Shōjo. I can understand my brother (or any high school boy) being interested in the sometimes bizarre antics of cute high school girls (including the precocious Chiyo-chan), and I know an eight year old boy who likes it, too. Though I lack the interest and patience to read through all four volumes myself, I admit I enjoy slice-of-life stories and can relate to some of the characters... If that makes me uselessly banal, then so be it. :-)
But Daioh, a sienen manga? Maybe it's simply that Wiki's classification for Azumanga Daioh is wrong. I dunno.
Either way, I agree that robots are cool. Especially flying robots with laser eyes.
Are we off-topic yet? Actually, I was wondering if a tee reading "Anti-gay? Not so fine with me" would be approved. Or "Homophobes suck!" Or "Jesus Was Mortal" or ...
Sorry. This is a simple First Amendment issue. The statement is offensive but is definitely protected - and should be.
How would you respond if he banned t-shirts that said "God is dead"?
LC
Eamon et al, I don't know. Saying someone will go to Hell does count as a threat of violence. It doesn't seem like a convincing threat, but it makes of for its lack of believability with sheer frothing insanity and evil.
I don't think threats are protected by freedom of speech. And a T-shirt saying "Gays go to hell" or some such could be construed as a threat, i.e. "and I'm willing to help," considering how many supposedly gay guys are beaten up.
Schools have standards for dress codes. For example, they don't allow t-shits that advertise alcoholic beverages or cigarettes. They also have standards for non-harassing behavior.
I am assuming that most schools would not allow a t-shirt that says "Niggers are going to HELL!" Although that speech is protected by the First Amendment in the general public, on school grounds it's not tolerated.
I just don't see how wearing a shirt that proclaims hatred of a minority group, on school grounds, could be protected speech. Perhaps someone can point me to the relevant precedents?
They don't seem to realize that no one is anti-christian, we are anti-asshole. There used to be a difference but now the line has blurred.
Where was all this First Amendment stuff when I was in high school (80's)? Our student newspaper regularly got censored, and I even knew a kid who was made to change his pants because he'd painted a smiley-face on the butt. And we were the nerd school.
RE: #26:
"...overwhelmingly Republican, to a fault...."
Is no one going to take advantage of this straight line?
CP @ #20 said "Students are in school to learn a great many things, and among them is how to deal with others who aggressively disagree with one's own heartfelt ideals and values. I say let the shirts be worn -- and leave it to the students (aka "the next generation of adults") to figure out what it all means. Mediating their intellectual discourse for them isn't a great way to train their minds for the future.".
What a pollyanna attitude. Its one thing when students are agressively disagreeing with which football team is the best and totally another when a group of people is being demonized and your a member of that group. The feeling of having someone smear your football team is nothing compared to the feeling of having someone smear a core aspect of your being. Until you've been a member of a minority that's being persecuted by a large powerful majority you're in no position to be suggesting t-shirts like that are not a problem. Its terrifying as a member of an outcast minority to be targeted in this way - one most certainly isn't in a position to respond as though it a level playing field. "Train their minds for the future" - give me a break, you mean train oppressed gay kids to expect to suffer at the hands of the powerful. Please don't be so hopelessly naive.
I don't think between-classes buggery in the hallway is a problem...
Ahh, Proffessor! You have not had the sublime privilege of sporting in the academic groves of Syosset High, that's obvious.
I have a hard time (on free-speech principles) understanding why it's OK for Skatje to wear a T-shirt supporting gays, but it's not OK for students to wear T-shirts criticizing gays.
I think we all know which T-shirt we agree with, but free-speech means defending the right of people to express themselves in ways that are offensive to us.
I honestly don't know the answer to this one. I would definitely draw the line at implicit or explicit threats of violence. I'm not so sure that I would consider a T-shirt saying 'I hate gays' to be wrong, that is if it's OK for other students to write 'I like gays'.
Personally, I would ban all slogan T-shirts, religious and patriotic symbols at school. I don't even like the idea of having the flag in the classroom.
Actually, I rather liked the idea of those students labeling themselves, too. It was like they were scrawling a big "L" on their foreheads for us.
Unfortunately, the problem is that there are gay students in the school (mostly very closeted, of course). Imagine being in their position, with a number of students wandering the halls who proudly self-identify as hating you. It's hard enough being a disrespected minority without having the school administration sanctioning students who think you are evil personified.
Violates the First Amendment. Students have a right to political expression at school, and schools may not simply declare those expressions to be "disruptive" in order to exclude them.
Not that anyone actually follows the rules, of course...
lol khan, sounds reasonable to me.
from what i can gather, the shirts said "homosexuality is a sin." inciting violence is indeed a concern. the 9th circuit court decision (last year) upheld the suspensions (last year) on the basis that the shirts target a minority group in a negative manner. it's rather hotly debated. i'm not sure that's totally constitutional.
at that point, you might be able to say that those are "fighting words," incitement to violence, which are not protected. t-shirts are a lot more passive than shouting in someone's face, even if the message is every bit as despicable. so the line is really kind of hazy here. i'd like to see a case get higher than the circuit courts, personally.
christianity is a strange religion. they want to help people. they THINK that pointing out lifestyle "choices" as sinful, that they will gain repentant converts. i don't know WHY they think this; maybe it worked on them.
but if you go up an talk to one of the gay-bashing people and ask them how to avoid going to hell, they'll gladly tell you. so it's really, really hard to tell the difference between actual threats and simple ugly bigotry in this case.
home school. private school. taking the g.e.d. early and skipping high school entirely. there *are* other options, actually. school attendance is mandatory, but which school and taught by whom doesn't actually matter.
in this country, we do not have the right to avoid being offended.
not sure that's legal, either. for a variety of reasons.
christian fundamentalists are not a majority. even if the majority of the american public is christian, or even fundamentalist. you really have to understand the mindset to get this -- some of the churches are so incredibly phobic of "the world" that they see it as their little church vs everyone else. including other groups of christians. sometimes even including other churches in their denomination. they see it as their church of, what was it, 20? against everyone else. 20 vs millions is a minority.
that's wrong for an additional reason -- it is excessive entanglement with religion.
schools are allowed to censor student newspapers for whatever reason they see fit, since the paper represents the school. that's an entirely different issue.
i was the kid who was pushed around all through school. i'm well aware that school can be a terrifying place. i am not gay myself, but a few of my close friends in high school were. i participated in at least one very vocal debate in the middle of class with a fundamentalist student, regarding homosexuality. (ran the poor kid in circles for an hour).
i do not think t-shirts are a problem. the ideas may be potentially dangerous, the words themslves will not directly cause violence (though some of the lesbians i knew in high school might be more inclined to kick the crap of people wearing said shirts).
it is an unfortunate fact of reality that bigotry still exists. most gay people that i knew in high school were well aware of this unfortunate fact, many with first-hand experience. some from their own families. the silly christian kids that just think they're helping piss them off, sure. but claiming they are suffering because the school cannot punish those who don't like them is kind of wacky too. can we ban shirts that say "freshmen suck," that seniors might wear?
you also have to keep this in context. this is a dozen or so kids saying one rather bigotted thing, "homosexuality is a sin," that is in itself non-threatening, on a day where potential hundreds of students are voicing their support for homosexuals dealing with bigotry. ironically, the "day of silence: is potentially much more disruptive than the bigotted t-shirts. students abstaining from speaking -- participating in class -- CAN interfere with the learning process.
Every school has a dress code which alerts students and parents to the fact that clothing creating a disruption in the learning environment will not be tolerated. Students have the right to voice their political beliefs, but not, for instance, in the middle of a lecture. Varying standards of what is or is not disruptive can create confusion, and as long as Principal Terwilliger took time to explain to the offending students why their shirts were considered disruptive, and allowing them the opportunity to make the choice of not wearing them again, the suspensions are completely warrented.
If, on the other hand, a group of students was summarily suspended for clothing that is not specifically mentioned in the code of conduct, the suspensions are a gross violation of said code (aside, does that school's code of conduct mention sensitivity to sexual orientation? I assume that some schools now do, just as clothing offensive or threatening to gender or ethnicity is often mentioned as not within the dress code.).
To Caledonian, I agree that the burden is on the school to show that an action (in this case the wearing of an article of clothing) is disruptive, but as I said above, as long as students are informed that specific sentiments are going to be considered disruptive as of tomorrow, the students will then be knowingly creating a disruptive atmosphere.
To be fair, I think that a school should also be free to punish students who refuse to speak for political reasons, as long as those students are informed beforehand that a specific action will not be tolerated. It used to be understood that civil disobediece had consequenses.
To be so fair that I'm sure I'll be called a moron, if Skatje was informed by school officials that the "Gay? Fine by me" t-shirt would no longer be tolerated, the school would be within its rights to punish her for conduct disruptive of the learning process.
So is making loud whooping noises in the middle of class considered protected speech?
"I also do not see how 80% of a society can ever be persecuted. I have never heard of a persecuted Majority..."
Um. Ever heard of South Africa? I have. At least 80% of our population are black and were indeed persecuted, for a very long time.
I take your point - I've made it myself on occasion - but I think your distinction should be that the 80% in your case actually have political power.
Regarding the T-Shirts - if I was back in high-school and someone was wearing a T-Shirt with those exact words on it, as a gay man, I would certainly regard them as "fighting words". Unfortunately, as most gay students are still in the closet (for good reason, as this shows), it's difficult to object without revealing your sexuality. And if you're straight and you object, you get called "gay". Which can be offensive to a straight guy. Thus limiting the gay students freedom of speech, and the straight students freedom of speech, in both cases by intimidation.
In South Africa we have "hate speech" exceptions to our freedom of speech - I don't know if I necessarily agree, since "hate speech" is a slippery concept that's difficult to define and could be applied in cases where it's used as an excuse to censor someone. (But since no-one in this country actually listens to anyone else, it doesn't really matter...)
arachnophilia (#75):
It may make no difference to the quality of the education the child receives, or its legal conformity, but it most certainly matters. Many parents will simply not be able to afford private school fees, or have sufficient free time for effective homeschooling. And though I'm not familiar with the GED Tests, I understand you can't take them until you're sixteen, and that in most cases you can't simply waltz in and take them without preparation.
Quite aside from the impracticality, it seems to me that withdrawing your child from school because of harassment means that the perpetrator has effectively limited his or her freedom of association or movement. Far better to address the problem in school with the help of the staff - both parties to the harassment will end up with a better education as a result.
Sorry to lower the tone here but if the religious kids are wearing "Gays go to hell" t-shirts then why not just respond in kind? Order hundreds of Cradle Of Filth's classic "Jesus Is A C*nt" t-shirts?
Sorry, horribly immature I know but they started it :-)
In all seriousness I'm slightly on the side of allowing the t-shirts and just getting everyone with half a brain to rally together and either ignore them or mock them. Banning the shirts only fuels the persecution complex, gets them tabloid inches and makes them feel justified.
To be fair there probably is a line to be crossed when it comes to threats but they are definitely not being threatening. All they're saying is "Gay people make me feel icky. My imaginary friend won't let them come to the cool playground in the sky when they die. So there. (followed by picture of old bearded chap sticking his tongue out and screwing his eyes up)"
You can't legislate against idiocy, you can only try to educate them...
Another non-Yankee, but I'd be on the side of the First Amendment here too. While the message these people are putting out is despicable, they have a right to say it, just as the more reasonable people in the school have the right to wear "Yahweh = Hate Fairy" shirts.
Thinking more broadly, I think that more so-called "Christians" should wear these shirts with Biblical quotes to show that they and their religion have nothing at all to do with infinite love and forgiveness. I think there's no better result for atheism than this campaign for religiously sanctioned bigotry. Let them take off the saccharine soft focus mask of love and forgiveness and show the hateful face underneath.
J Crowley:
Public schools are allowed to enforce rules necessary to their pedagogical purpose. Not only can students not make loud whooping noises in the middle of a lecture, they also cannot stand up and loudly pray to Allah during a math exam. Nonetheless, praying to Allah is their Constitutional right, and they may do so at school, at times and places where it doesn't interfere with school activities.
Now, what about t-shirts with messages? Do they interfere with pedagogy? Seemingly not -- students wear them routinely. The problem is that many here want to address the specific viewpoint of the message. That's precisely what public schools are not allowed to do. And no, I don't buy the argument that an anti-gay t-shirt is necessarily a threat to gays, any more than a t-shirt saying "god is dead" is necessarily a threat to Christians.
So a t-shirt saying ALL MUSLIMS GO TO HELL should be permitted?
Or what about ALL CATHOLICS GO TO HELL?
What about ALL CHRISTIANS WILL DIE?
What about BUSH WILL DIE AND GO TO HELL?
Just sayin'.
Russell wrote, "...I don't buy the argument that an anti-gay t-shirt is necessarily a threat to gays, any more than a t-shirt saying "god is dead" is necessarily a threat to Christians."
I guess the key phrase in your statement is 'necessarily'. I can't think of a single phrase, on a t-shirt or any other medium, which is 'necessarily' a threat.
But communication is a complex process, where the intended message may not be what is received and unintended harm may occur.
Here's a message for a t-shirt:
"Kill Niggards!"
How do you think most people will read it?
I am not trying to suggest that the anti-gay message worn by the students is anywhere nearly as provokative as my example, that would be an easily smashed straw man. I'm simply pointing out that the message received, and the reaction to a received message, may be very different than the senders intent.
Jokingly telling a flight attendant that you have a bomb is very likely to result in meaning conveyed that you didn't intend. Even discussing a bill of materials with a co-worker in the plane, often shorted to BOM (pronounced 'bomb') can lead to embarrassing mistakes.
"Kill Niggards!"
LOL... wow. We all know how it will be read, and not as a threat of deadly violence against Scroogists.
Steve_c wrote: What about ALL CHRISTIANS WILL DIE?
And what exactly would be wrong with that? How is that different from a t-shirt saying "All men are mortal" or "All circles are round". Just a statement of fact.
If the shirt read "Persecute, abuse and kill all Christians NOW!!!" then there'd be grounds to have it banned on grounds of incitement I reckon.
The 'HELL' shirts you mention are irrelevant, all they say is "I hold a strange and utterly unfounded belief that people all have wierd ghost-things called souls and people who worship a different sky-daddy from me will have their souls spent all of time in a really nasty place." Your example was just a little less long-winded and would be more easily readable from a distance in shirt format. I always sucked at design.
You're missing the point.
Of course all christians will die... everyone dies...
But it could be construed as ALL CHRISTIANS WILL DIE ... (WHEN I PULL OUT MY GUN AND SHOOT THEM IN THE HEAD)
Saying someone will go to hell is a statement that they are either evil or are inherently wrong in some way... it's personal. Whether you accept there is a hell or not.
It's like wearing a t-shirt that says GOD GAVE GAYS AIDS.
Because a statement is based on a religious belief does not give it a free pass in a public school.
I think you're missing my point as well though - why would anyone care what another's god supposedly thinks of them? It's a statement of personal stupidity more than anything else. Same goes for the "God gave gays AIDS" one - the rational response is to mock the wearer heartily and perhaps explain either that there is no god (which would be my suggestion) or, if you also happen to be a believer, that your own god certainly did no such thing and it's a shame their god is so hateful.
I also reckon that construing "all christians will die" as "all christians will die (when I pull out my gun and shoot them in the head" is a bit of a stretch. Maybe just one of those quirks of UK vs US English. Even if you go that far you're opening a whole bag of worms as it all boils down to personal interpretation - start going down that road and you'll lose a whole lot more than some braindead t-shirts.
Anyway, time for me to get to my dad's wedding (a civil ceremony thankfully) so this'll have to be my closing word on the subject.
My thoughts?
Those t-shirts - stupid and juvenile
Appropriate reaction - mockery and ridicule
Inciting violence - stupid and dangerous
Appropriate reaction - stamp it out
If they want to be hateful, then it's on them. What a lot of those kids don't want the others to know is that in the same verses that condemns gays to hell, it also condemns anyone who has sex outside of marriage to the same fate. Also murderers, rapists, witches, and liers. How many of those kids were boinking each other and calling it ok?
But, this is the United States, and we do have some inalienable rights, like free speech. Just remember, when someone tells us what we can and can't say, legally, then we end up with McCarthyism, Red Scare, etc.. What's next after that? The right to search and seizure? 1984? Thought Police? The military bunking down in your house because it's closer than the base?
Just because somebody does something stupid, doesn't make it illegal.
Nobody said anything about illegal.
Just what's permissable in a public high school.
peter barber (#80):
you make a good point. so does last year's 9th circuit court ruling on the same subject, which phrases the shirts as failing the tinker the test.
Arachnophilia @ #75 said "claiming [gay students] are suffering because the school cannot punish those who don't like them is kind of wacky too."
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about - you did admit you're not gay and yet you have the ignorance and arroagance to presume to know what its like to be gay?! Give me a break. Its extremely intimidating and depressing to be targeted in this kind of way and as other's have pointed out, closeted gay students don't feel able to respond in anyway. It is suffering, I know, I've been there and I am LGBT. Don't presume to tell me what I experienced.
"i do not think t-shirts are a problem. the ideas may be potentially dangerous, the words themslves will not directly cause violence"
You got part of that right - you do not think. Accepting the t-shirts is the same as accepting the ideas. When the ideas are a problem so are the t-shirts. T-shirts saying gays go to hell aren't any more acceptable than T-shirts saying niggers go to hell.
Also, the idea that no gays should get upset about being called sinners because god is imaginary wrongly assumes all gays are atheists. Many gays are religious and being told you are going to hell is a deep and serious threat.
It may not matter to the law, but it certainly matters to the student who's been driven out of his/her school, as Peter Barber noted above.
The thing is, in addition to being compulsory (subject to the more-or-less burdensome alternatives you mention), public education is also a right. All students -- not just the ones God doesn't hate -- have the right to be enrolled, but having exercised that right, they may not, practically speaking, have the ability to avoid the abusive, intimidating, potentially threatening behavior of their fellow students. It is therefore incumbent upon the school to restrict such behavior.
Of course not, and I would never suggest we should... but we do have other rights, including the right to be secure in our persons and the right to nondiscriminatory access to public education.
To the extent these t-shirts use speech to create an atmosphere of fear or intimidation that denies other students their own legitimate rights, that use of speech may not be protected. If this particular speech is abusive rather than merely offensive (I tend to think it is, but that's a legal question for wiser heads than mine to grapple with), then it seems to me that the school has a compelling interest in protecting its charges from that abuse.
It may not seem like it from my argument in this thread, but I'm a great champion for freedom of speech. It does not follow, though, that every act accomplished using speech is a protected act: Assault, incitement, extortion, fraud, perjury, and conspiracy are all instances of speech, yet none of them islegitimized by the First Amendment. I hate censorship, but there's a qualitative difference between "protecting" ideas from criticism and protecting people from attack.
I am very conflicted about this sort of thing. I know uniforms cure it; but my own experience with them makes me think they create more problems than they solve.
I do think if I were a high school teacher and students wore disruptive clothing I'd use it as a "teachable moment".
i don't know first-hand, no. but i know second-hand. many of my close friends in high school were gay. trust me, i heard alot about it from one of my friends in particular. i was there to help her through some of it too. it's about as close to first-hand experience as a heterosexual person can experience.
i am aware that it is extremely intimidating and depressing to be targetted for exclusion. i was extremely intimidated and depressed throughout school because i was targetted for other reasons.
i'm not presuming to tell you what you did or did not experience. i am simply saying that there is no way to equally protect everyone from everyone else, without trampling on some rights somewhere. the government does not have the obligation to protect us from people who don't like us, just people who pose a real, physical threat. we might be able to argue that the school acts en loco parentis and is charged with the care of the students, but i'm unsure how good that argument is when it comes to spoken criticisms.
you cannot punish ideas. and in this country, we have a fundamental right to express ideas, within a few boundaries. like it or not, bigotted, racist, and homophobic ideas and expressions of ideas are protected just like everything else. it is not the government's jurisdiction to judge the subjective quality of a message.
of course not. and many deeply religious fundamentalists are gay, too. being called "a sinner" can be offensive, i agree. but remember, to the fundamentalist christian, EVERYONE is a sinner, including themselves. they just target homosexuals more than others. their threat of hell also applies to EVERYONE. look at ray comfort's "way of the master" conversion techniques.
yes, well, the question here is regarding the law. i don't think anyone here would say that such a message is NOT offensive. the issue is whether it is a punishable offense, legally. i'm not sure. the 9th circuit court says it is, and gives some convincing reasons, but i'm not totally convinced one way or the other.
yes.
school is full of abuse. it's a cruel fact of life.
but students also have the right to "fight back" in the free exchange of ideas. wear shirts that say "homosexuality is NOT a sin" or such other supportive slogans. this is on a day when hundreds of other students were doing just that.
the phrasing you use, "secure in our persons" (fourth amendment) and nondiscrimatory access to free and public education (brown v. board of education) do not apply to this case. the fourth amendment regards "security" in terms of privacy, and brown is about government segregation of schools. government action is very different from actions the government allows the citizens to perform.
as i linked above, this is how the 9th circuit court ruled last year: that such shirts restricted the rights of gay and lesbian students, and interfered with their ability to learn.
i am not sure this is valid, however. this was the same reasoning that led to the suspensions of tinker et al, which the court overturned as not substantially disruptive. the effective difference between the two cases is the content of the message.
if it implies a threat of violence (from either side) then the school is compelled to restrict it, yes. if it disrupts class, the school is also compelled to restrict it. legally, that's the only standard i am aware of. i'm not sure "being mean" is a substantial enough reason to muzzle speech. though perhaps one could make a case based on libel? just a thought.
of course. not all speech is protected, even outside of school. inside school, rights still exist, but there is some minor restriction -- much like we give up certain rights of privacy in an airport. gay-bashing, as far as i am aware, i still constitutionally protected (unless it becomes incitement or threatening) outside of school. the question then becomes, does it pass or fail the tinker standard?
arachnophilia:
It was certainly a tactical error on my part to use the familiar phrase from the Fourth Amendment when I actually had in mind the broader principle under which citizens are generally protected against assaults, whether verbal or physical, actual or implied. I didn't mean to reference the Fourth (which you properly note is much more narrowly focused) at all, except perhaps as a literary allusion. Serves me right for studying literature and creative writing rather than constitutional law, eh?
The right to nondiscriminatory access to public schools, OTOH, is much broader than the racial segregation issue addressed in Brown. As a former teacher and a current member of a town commission overseeing school renovations, I know all too well that the principle of nondiscriminatory access is woven through our laws and regulations in a way that goes far beyond Brown.
As for the rest, my intial impulse was to respond point-by-point, but maybe we can condense and synthesize a bit.
I don't mean to presume on your meaning, but far too often this sort of statement is intended to trivialize the impact of such "abuse," and to hint at the troublingly Nietzschean notion that since it doesn't actually kill students (usually), such cruelty must make them stronger. Since we're deconstructing each other's language here, it's instructive that later on you refer to this as "being mean" [my emphasis] rather than "talking mean." We're talking about behavior here, and the behavior we're talking about is bullying, and bullying does cause material harm, even when it doesn't take the form of physical violence. I have little patience for any Tom Brown's Schooldays romanticization of school bullying.
I would defend with all my heart the right of these people to wear these t-shirts on the street, at the mall, etc. But when the state (in the person of a school) gathers together a group of minors (whom the law presumes, rightly or wrongly, to be less than fully capable of protecting their own interests) and compels them to be together for 6 to 8 hours a day, then the state takes on the responsibility (a legal obligation, in many cases) to protect the rights and general well-being of those minors... all those minors, not just the righteous, God-fearing ones.
Gay bashing targets a particular group and causes them actual harm: It invades their privacy (because even if the bashers don't explicitly "out" their targets, they create the conditions for such outing); it puts their physical security and emotional health at risk (even in the absence of an overt physical threat); and it most definitely disrupts their ability to accomplish the learning the state compels them to be there to accomplish.
Public statements of support for a particular group (e.g., "Gay? OK With Me!") are qualitatively different from abusive, condemning expressions, in that they do not create the harms I mentioned above. This is about the nature of the behavior, not the ideas expressed: I would consider a "Gay Bashers Go To Hell" just as abusive as the shirt we're talking about, because bullying is bullying, even when the bullies are on the "right" side of the underlying issue.
At the end of the day, of course, it's all about the law. Since the courts (at least in the case you cite) have come down on the side that I happen to think is right, both morally and pragmatically, I'm comfortable. Somehow I'll manage to cope with your uncertainty. ;^)
i don't believe it is the government's job to protect its citizens from "verbal assualt." physical assault, yes. verbal messages that direct or cause physical assault, yes. but just general nasty comments aren't something the government can forbid.
what i mean is that brown applies to government employees (ie: teachers and school administrators, as part of the state, which is under the federal rules thanks to amendment 14). it does not apply to students in that way.
that was not precisely what i was going for. my point was that kids in school are cruel, as a point of fact, and there is no effective way we can ban emotional abuse. and something like t-shirts, though the message can be taken very offensively, is actually about the least aggressive form of cruelty in schools.
that's just a common colloquialism. i mean, specifically, "saying derogatory things." i'm not sure we can actually control that sort of thing, whereas physical bullying is well within the legal limits to punish. i probably should have been more precise.
of all the bullies i was worried about in school, none where the crazy christian fundamentalists. maybe other people have had different experiences, but mostly the jesusy-homophobes kept to themselves and tried to lure you into their meetings with free pizza. they didn't go around beating people up. the case might be different here, if these kids are part of a phelpsian style church that actually espouses violence.
the case would be very, very different if the person wearing the shirt was an adult, or a school employee. but the people wearing the shirts are minors themselves.
that last bit is really the question. as far as i can tell, we do not have a legal standard for emotional health and such. the only legal standard we have for in school speech (of this kind) is whether or not it disrupts class. i'm not sure if the tinker standard can be read on an individual level (i've always taken it on the class or school level), but we'll presume for the sake discussion that it can be. so the issue is whether or not the speech disrupts the learning process.
this is, of course, always the argument that school officials make when they muzzle speech. it was the argument the principal made in the tinker case, too -- that black armbands, which could prompt discussion of the vietnam war (a controversial subject at the time), should be banned lest they interrupt class and spark debate.
as far as that argument goes, i do not see a difference between this and that. the only difference here is that speech might potentially upset the students it (unspecifically) targets.
the supreme court has long defended the rights of everyone to say more or less whatever they want. groups that espouse hatred of other groups have always been a tough question, and so you get a number of interesting cases regarding behaviour and speech of people like the kkk. rallies -- ok. burning crosses on lawns -- not ok. the standard for whether or not speech is allowed in cases like this is another phrase that will probably conjur the wrong image: "clear and present danger." is the threat specific? is it impending? does it urge people to commit crimes? if not, it's allowable.
symbolic speech is behaviour, and it's protected too. shirts, while a little less symbolic than black armbands or taped mouths, is still considered "symbolic speech."
and it is most certainly about the ideas. it can't possibly be about anything else. the only behaviour here was wearing a t-shirt. the t-shirts were not banned because people wore them, but because of what they said. no other behaviour took place -- they were not suspended for beating up a gay person. there is no indication that the shirts would cause other behaviour, such as beating up a gay person.
whereas i would consider such shirts completely fair game. (and if the shirt were mine to make, i would add a bible reference, like matthew 5:22, to justify such a statement)
that's good. personally, i'd just like to see the case get higher in the courts, because it's a tough question, and an important one. i don't, in any way, support homophobia or fundamentalism, but i do support the rights of the american people. even if it includes the rights to say some pretty damned offensive things. if we can start muzzling speech we see as offensive, we start down a slippery slope.
i'm aware that can be a fallacy, but in this case it is a valid legal argument and has been a predominant part of first amendment case law for some time.
All of the people trying to make public schools utterly nonoffensive in every way are what's going to destroy them. Not NCLB, not governmental mismanagement - trying to accomplish the impossible and holding the schools accountable for their failure to achieve the impossible goal.
schools are also governmental bodies, as they are run by the state, so actions they take to punish certain kinds of speech are equivalent to the government muzzling speech. with slightly different standards, of course.
further information that time magazine recently made me aware of. the 1986 case bethel school district v. fraser (and 1992's broussard v. school board of norfolk) ruled that vulgar or sexually suggestive speech can be limited and punished by the schools. not sure if that can apply here -- or maybe extended to include hateful messages, as per the 9th circuit's ruling?